The Main schism of the Jain
Church was the one between the Svetambaras
and the Digambaras.
The Svetambaras
believe that even before this schism, there had been seven other schisms. These schisms had started when
certain important leaders of the Church had disagreed with the views of the Main Church on some points
of philosophy or ritual. These leaders had then taken away their followers and established what one might
call separate sects. However, these schisms had little permanent effects, for the newly formed sects
had either disappeared or had joined the main Church again on the death of their leaders. The seven schisms
have been all described together in AvashyakaNiryukti, VIII,
56-100. (The Digambaras
do not know of these seven schisms at all.)

The first of these schisms, as we have already seen, happened during the
life of Mahavira himself. Its leader was his own son-in-law Jamali. Jamali broke away with his followers
from Mahavira fourteen years after the latter had attained omniscience. The point on which Jamali differed
from Mahavira would appear to an outsider to be a mere quibble.

The second schism was started by Tissagutta in Rajagriha. This happened
also during the life time of Mahavira and only two years after Jamali's schism. Tissagutta's followers
were called Jivapaesiyas.
They controverted Mahavira's view that the soul is permeated in all the atoms of the body.

The third schism was led by Asadha at Seyaviya, 214 years after the death
of Mahavira. Asadha's followers were called Avattiyas,
and they held that there was no difference between Gods, saints, kings and other beings.

The fourth schism was started by Assamitta in Mihila 220 years after Mahavira's
death. Assamitta was a disciple of Kidinna who was a disciple of Mahagiri. Assamitta's followers were
called Samuchchheiyas and they held that after the end of all life will come one day, the effects of good
or bad deeds are immaterial.

The fifth schism was started by Ganga
at Kullakatiriya, 228 years after the death of Mahavira. Ganga
was a disciple of Dhanagutta, another disciple of Mahagiri. His followers were called Dokiriyas, and
they held that two opposite feelings such as cold and warmth could be experienced at the same time.

The sixth schism arose in Antaranjiya and was started by Sadulaya, otherwise
known as Rohagutta, 544 years 1
after the death of Mahavira. Sadulaya is said to have been the author of the Vaisheshika Sutras.
His followers were called Terasiyas
and they held that between life (Jiva)
and non-life (Aliv),
there is a third state `no-Jiva'.
According to the Kalpa-Sutra,
the Terasiya
sect was founded by Rohagutta a disciple of Mahagiri. 2

The seventh schism was led by Gotthamahila at Dashapura, 584 years after
Mahavira's death. His followers were called Abaddhiyas
and they asserted that Jiva
was not bounded by karma.

No trace of these seven schisms is now left in the Jain
religion.

The Eighth Schism --- Digambaras
and Svetambaras

The Jain
community is divided into two sects Digambara
and Shvetambara.
Both the sects have exactly the same religious and philosophical beliefs and practically the same mythology.
The only noticeable difference in the mythology of the two sects is regarding the sex of the nineteenth
Tirthankara Mali.
The Svetambaras
believe that Mali was a woman, while Digambaras
think that Mali was a man. This difference of opinion about Mali arises out of the few differences in
the beliefs of the two sects. The Digambaras
think that it is not possible for a woman to achieve salvation, and as all Tirthankaras
do achieve salvation, the nineteenth Tirthankara could not have been a woman. Another difference between
the two sects is that the Digambaras
think that all Jain
ascetics should follow the example of Mahavira and remain nude, while the Svetambaras think that the practice
of remaining nude known as JinaKalpa
was given up by the great teachers of the church within a few generations after Mahavira (i.e. after Jambu)
and they had started wearing white garments. This practice was known as sthaviraKalpa.
the present-day ascetics according to the Svetambaras
need follow only these great teachers (sthaviras),
and it was necessary to practice the JinaKalpa.
The third point on which the two sects differ is regarding the food of the kevali
(omniscient). The Digambaras
maintain that a kevali
does not need any intake of food, while the Svetambaras
think that they do. The point is academic, for both the sects are unanimous that nobody is going to become
a Kevali in the
foreseeable future.

Digambaras
also deny two of the Shvetambara
beliefs about Mahavira, viz., that Mahavira's embryo was taken from the womb of the Brahman
woman Devananda and transferred to the womb of Trishala, and also that Mahavira had married and had a
daughter. (Other minor differences between these two communities are given later).

It will be noticed that these and similar other differences are of a minor
nature and do not affect the main tenets of the religion which were essentially same for both the sects.
On the other hand, these differences minor though they might be, have cleaved the Jain
community into two distinct groups with practically no inter-mixing on the religious or even social plane;
for even inter-marriage between the two sects is not ordinarily permissible. This was because the two
communities have necessarily their own temples, the Digambaras
having the images of the Tirthankaras
nude, and the Svetambaras
clothed. The monks or ascetics who are the religious leaders of the sects are similarly nude, and clothed
in white respectively. Also, due to some reasons mentioned later, the Digambaras
refuse to recognize the canonical books of the Svetambaras,
and have their own texts.

Thus we see that the two sects both swearing allegiance to Mahavira and
his teachings, behave in their practical religious life as two different societies. How a community with
the same religious philosophy started behaving at some point of time as two distinct communities is not
clearly known. The early religious literature of both the sects is practically silent on this point.
It is thus possible to conjecture that the Church was undivided in the beginning, the more orthodox ones
among the monks practicing nudity (JinaKalpa),
and the others not discarding clothes (sthaviraKalpa).
Indeed we have in the Parishishtaparvam
of the Shvetambara
polymath Hemchandra, the narration that during the time of king Samparti in Ujjaini, the Church had two
leaders Mahagiri and Suhastin. After some time "Mahagiri made over his disciples to Suhastin and
lived as a Jinakalpika,
though Jinakalps
had by that time fallen into disuse". 3
Thus perhaps while nudity was optional in the beginning, it became later the fixed manner of all those
who adopted it, considering it to be the orthodox way of Jainism. The separation of the Digambaras
and Svetambaras
according to this thinking was thus a gradual process, and there was no point of time when there was any
actual schism. This appears to be a plausible theory.

A slight modification of this theory would be that Hemchandra was wrong,
and the jinkalpika
was never given up. One group of Jain
ascetics continued to practice it throughout, and this group was later called Digambara.
The Great scholar of Jainism Hoernle has argued in his essay on the Ajivikas
in the Encyclopedia of religion and Ethics, that originally the Digambaras
were those Ajivikas who were unhappy at the behavior of their leaders Makkhali Goshala at the time of
his death. After leaving his sect they had joined Mahavira and had become the latter’s followers. Thus
the Digambaras
as a group were separate from the time of Mahavira himself. Hoernle's conjecture is based mainly on two
grounds. Firstly, not only did the Ajivikas practice strict nudity (they were achelakas),
but also a few of their other customs resembled those of the Digambara
monks to some extent. On this latter point Hoernle has cited some instances which do not seem to be borne
out by facts. For instance, Hoernle says that Ajivikas used to carry a stick (ekadandi),
and so do the Digambara
monks now-a-days. As a matter of fact, it is the Shvetambara
monk who may carry a stick, and not a Kigambara monk who can have practically no earthly possession.
The second point on which Hoernle bases his arguments is that many ancient authors and lexicographers
have confused the Ajivikas
with the Digambaras.
A. L. Basham in his Ajivikas4
has shown that Hoernle has mis-read most of these ancient authorities, and there was no such confusion
in them as Hoernle alleges. But Basham fails to explain one comment of the Shvetambara
Pandit Shilanka (9th century). In his commentary on the SutrakritAnga,
speaking about those ascetics who revile the followers of Mahavira, Shilanka said that these revelers
were the Ajivikas
or the Digambaras.5
Is it possible that such a learned Jain
author as Shilanka would by mistake equate Ajivikas with the Digambaras?
It is possible to think with Hoernle that Shilanka really thought that the Ajivikas
were the same as Digambaras.
The bulk of the evidence however, is against Hoernle's conjecture, and the theory that some Ajivikas formed
the nucleus of the Digambara
sect cannot be built upon this one stray reference by Shilanka.

(In the same commentary Shilanka makes another enigmatic reference6
to the Ajivikas.
This time he equates the followers of Goshala (i.e. the Ajivikas)
with the Terasiyas the followers of Rohagutta, the leader of the sixth schism of the Jain
Church).

The Jains
themselves both Svetambaras
and Digambaras
have their own versions as to how the schism between them occurred. These appear in their later books
composed long after the alleged occurrences. As stated earlier these are mere legends and cannot be verified
as history. The Shvetambara
version is given in Avashyakabhashya
a work of about 500 AD The legend is as follows:

There was a person called Shivabhuti who had founded a sect called the Bodiya
in the city of Rathavirapura. The occasion for doing this arose in this manner:

Shivabhuti had won many battles for his king, and the latter showered honors
on him. Naturally, Shivabhuti became very proud and used to return home late at night. His mother on
the complaint of her daughter-in-law refused to open the door one night, and asked him to go to any place
the door of which he was likely to find open. Getting wild Shivabhuti entered such a place that, however,
turned out to be monastery. He asked the head priest to initiate him but the priest refused to do so,
where upon Shivabhuti himself plucked out his hair and wandered as a monk.

After some time this self-initiated monk Shivabhuti happened to come to
the same place. The king, his former friend came to know of his arrival, and sent him a costly garment
(ratnakambala)
as a gift.

Shivabhuti's superior protested and disallowed him to use such a garment.
When Shivabhuti did not listen to his advice the teacher tore off that garment and used it as a mattress.
Getting wild and excited Shivabhuti gave up all clothing.

(A slightly different version of this says that the occasion for it arose
when once, his teacher, expounding the texts to a class, came up against the following, alluding to a
special stage of JinaKalpa.)

"Jinakalpia
ya... ... ... ... ... duviha".
It meant that Jinakalpias
were of two kinds. Some of them might have the necessary requisites, and others not. On hearing it Shivabhuti
asked his teacher, “While there is the system of JinaKalpa,
why should there be the bondage of clothes? A monk following JinaKalpa
and living in solitude should follow the principles of austerity, including nudity". The teacher
tried to bring him round, but Shivabhuti would not be persuaded, and gave up all clothing. He thus created
a schism in the community.

His sister Uttara also followed him and she also became naked. But when
the courtesans of the city complained that nobody would go to them seeing the ugly nature of the female
body, Shivabhuti disallowed his sister to accept nudity. Thus nudity was started by the Bodiyas under
Shivabhuti. The Bodiyas presumably were later called the Digambaras.
This, the eighth schism according to the Svetambaras
occurred in 609 AV.
or AD 83.

The Digambara
version of how the Svetambaras
broke away from the main Church that the Digambaras
call the Mulasangha is completely different. It was also recorded much later. The first record is found
in Harisena's Brihatkathakosa of AD 931. This is as follows:

In the reign of Chandragupta Maurya,
Bhadrabahu had predicted a terrible famine in the country of Magadh,
for a period of 12 years. Hence a part of the community emigrated to South India under his leadership,
while the rest remained in Magadh.

When after some time the leaders met together in Ujjayini, the famine was
still there, and hence they allowed the monks to wear a piece of cloth (ardhaphalaka)
to hide shame while on the begging tour. But even when the famine was over these monks refused to give
up the use of the piece of cloth. The conservative elements protested against this. And thus these Ardhaphalakas
proved to be the forerunner of the Shvetambara
sect.

The final separation came later due to Chandraledha, queen of king Lokapala
of Valabhipura. It is related that these Ardhaphalaka monks were invited by her; but seeing them neither
clothed nor naked, the king was disappointed, and the queen, therefore, asked them to dress completely.
Thenceforth the Ardhaphalakas
began to put on white clothes and came to be called Shvetapatas.
This happened in AD 80.

(There is a reference to a Shvetapata
community in a grant issued in his fourth regnal year by the Kadamba king Mrigeshavarma, (AD 475-490).
The grant of a village was made to a community of Jains
living in the city of Vaijayanti. The Village was divided into three shares, the first to the holy Arhat,
the second to the eminent ascetics called Shvetapatas,
who were intent on practicing the true religion (Sad-dharma),
and the third for the eminent ascetics called Nirgranthas.
Thus the Shvetapatas
and Nirganthas
in this city in Karnataka were worshipping the same image of Arhat
in a temple. Whether the Shvetapatas referred to in the inscription and the Shvetapatas sect referred
to in the above Digambara
legend were the same is not known).

There is a serious weakness in this Digambara
version: It is not supported by the earliest Digambara
epigraph that mentions this famine. This epigraph, at Shravana Belgola, says that Bhadrabahu had predicted
the famine in Ujjayini and not in Magadh,
moreover he himself is not recorded to have accompanied the community to South India. Thus there are
contradictions in the Digambara
versions. On the other hand the Shvetambara
version as to how the Church split into two is a bit too puerile for such an important event. It appears
that all these stories were invented long after the actual split which in the beginning must have been
a gradual process that was completed some time at the end of the 5th century. We do not know when actually
the two sects finally separated but we have epigraphic records to prove that even in the 3rd century AD
the difference, if any, within the community was not sharp. The images found at Kankali-tila
in Mathura belong to this period. They depict the Tirthankaras
in a nude state. Yet the donors of these images presumably belonged to the Shvetambara
sect for the Shakhas
and Ganas to
which they belonged are the same as those which are mentioned in the ShvetambaraKalpa Sutra.
Moreover it appears from a few of the inscriptions that some of the donors were nuns or the disciples
of nuns. Thus though the images were in the Digambara
style the worshipers did not observe the Digambara
orthodoxy about disallowing women to become nuns. The exact dates of the Mathura inscriptions cannot
be determined. They are dated in the Kusana era and the dates mentioned are from 5 to 98 of this era.
However, the controversy as the when the Dusana
era started is not yet over, and if we go by the date suggested by R. C. Majumdar then this era started
in AD 244, and, therefore, the Mathura Jain
inscriptions belong to a period from the middle of the 3rd century to the middle of the 4th century.
Similarly, the other Tirthankara
images of this period found in northern India are also nude. The Inscription8
of Kahum in the Gorakhpur district refers to the installation of five images of Adikartris. This inscription
is dated AD 460. The images found here are nude. The conclusion would be that the difference in beliefs
of the two sects, if they had at all parted company by that time, was not up to then clear-cut and both
of the sects worshipped nude images.

The actual parting of the ways perhaps came some time near the middle of
the 5th century, when the Valabhi Council was held. It is said that the canon of the Svetambaras
had been reduced to a state of disorder and was even in danger of being lost altogether. Hence in the
year 980 (or 993) after the death of Mahavira (i.e. about the middle of the 5th century AD), a Council
was held in Valabhi in Gujarat, presided over by Devarddhi Ksahmashramna the head of the shool, for the
purpose of collecting the texts and writing them down. The twelfth Anga
containing the Purvas,
had already gone astray at that time. This is why we find only eleven Angas
in the recension which has come down to us, and which is supposed to be identical with that of Devarddhi.

The Digambaras
completely deny the authority of the texts collected by this council. They say that not only was the
knowledge of the 14 Purvas
lost at an early period, but that 436 years after Mahavira's Nirvana
the last person who knew all the 11 Angas
had died. The teachers who succeeded him knew all the 11 Angas
had died. The teachers who succeeded him knew less and less Angas
as time went on, until the knowledge of these works was completely lost 683 years after Mahavira's Nirvana.
Thus the Valabhi Council marks the final split between the Svetambaras
and Digambaras.

There is some iconographic evidence that supports the theory that it was
the period of the Valabhi council when the two sects actually parted company. As stated earlier all the
Tirthankara images
found at Mathura and datable up to the Kusana period depict the Tirthankaras
either in the standing position and nude, or, if seated, in the crossed legged position, are sculptured
in such a way that neither garments, nor genitals are visible. Thus up to the Kusana period both the
sects worshipped nude images. The earliest known image of a Tirthankara
with a lower garment, is a standing Rishabhnatha discovered at Akota in Gujarat. The date of his image
has been fixed at the later part of the fifth century.9
This was shortly after the period of the Valabhi Council.

The geographical distribution of the two sects also would give some support
to the theory that the Valabhi Council was the chief reason of the schism. It is found that the main
concentration of the Svetambaras
is round about and within 500 kilometers of Valabhi. Most of the Jains
in Gujarat, and western Rajasthan are Svetambaras,
while most of the Jains
of eastern Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, and the Jains
of South India are Digambaras.

It is possible that so far as the Jains
of Northern India were concerned, they might have had a Council of their own at Mathura. Its president
was Skandila. This name does not occur in the list of Sthaviras
of the Kalpa-Sutra,
but the name of Shandilya occurs 33rd in the list. Jacobi remarks10
in this connection: "I think Shandilya is the same as Skandila, who was president of the Council
of Mathura, which seems to have been the rival of that in Valabhi."

In other words, those who accepted the literature edited and collected at
Valabhi as canonical were later called Svetambaras,
and those whom either had their own Council at Mathura, or did not have any Council at all, as in South
India, were later called Digambaras.

The Digambaras
of South India, long before the time the Valabhi Council of the Svetambaras
had met, had started developing their own sacred literature. They had to do this because according to
them the last of the acharyas
who knew even a part of the Angas
had died 683 years after the death of Mahavira. The Name of this acharya
was Bhutavali. Nobody was left who knew even a part of the original canon. The next pontiff according
to some Digambara
lists was Bhadrabahu II. Kundakunda who claimed to be a disciple of this Bhadrabahu, therefore, started
writing the sacred books for the Digambaras.
He is said to have written altogether 84 such books. The names of all the works composed by Kundakunda
are not known. But three of his works, viz., Samayasara,
Pravachanasara,
and Panchastikayasara
are considered so important by the Digambaras that together they are called Prabhritatraya
or Saratraya, a name that
reminds one of the Prasthanatraya of
the Vedantists. Indeed Kundakunda is considered so important a personality in the Digambara hagiology
that a popular Digambara benedictory runs thus:

MAngalamBhagavanaViro,
mAngalamGautamogani,

MAngalamKundakundyadyau,
JaindharmostumAngalam.

To the Digambaras
thus Kundakunda is as important a teacher as Sudharma is to the Svetambaras.

Kundakunda was followed by many other Digambara
writers such as Vattakera, Kartikeya Svamin, etc. Practically all these authors belonged to South India.
Thus by the early centuries of the Christian era while the intellectual center of the Svetambaras
was developing in western India, the Digambaras
had their own intellectual center in south-west Karanataka. Perhaps this geographical separation of the
intellectual centers was the main reason why the two sections of the Jains
drifted. The Digambaras
had their own intellectual center in south-west Karanataka. Perhaps this Geographical separation of the
intellectual centers was the main reason why the two sections of the Jains
drifted. To some extent even the Gods began to differ: The Digambaras
in south-west Karnataka made Bahubali, a son of the first Tirthankara,
one of the most important deities and built colossal statues for him. Bahubali on the other hand is scarcely,
if at all, mentioned in the Shvetambara
mythology.

The Digambaras
called their Church, the MulaSangha or the
Main Church. The Mula Sangha is then said to have branched off into Nandi, Sinha, etc. But all Digambaras
to whatever gaccha
(sub-sect) they might belong, claim the descent of their gaccha
ultimately from the MulaSangha.

In the few centuries of the Christen era, the dominant sect among the
Jains of the
Deccan and South India were the Digambaras.
Only one inscription - a grant - has been found in these parts of India, which refers to the Shvetapatas
(Svetambaras)
by name. This is the Devagiri (Dharwar district) inscription11
of king Mrigeshavarmana referred to earlier. His period according to Saletore12
was AD 475-490.

The difference between the
Svetambaras
and the Digambaras

The total number of points by which the Digambaras
differ from the Svetambaras
are eighteen. These are listed below:

The Digambaras
do not accept the following Shvetambara
beliefs:

1. A kevali
needs food;

2. A kevali
needs to evacuate (nihara);

3. The women can get salvation. (In order to get salvation a woman
has according to the Digambaras
to be born again as a man).

4. The Shudras
can get salvation;

5. A person can get salvation without forsaking clothes;

6. A house holder can get salvation;

7. The worship of images having clothes and ornaments is permitted;

8. The monks are allowed to possess fourteen (specified ) things;

9. The Tirthankara
Mali was a woman;

10. The eleven of the 12 original Angas
(Canonical works) still exist;

11. Bharat Chakravarti
attained kevali
hood while living in his palace;

12. A monk may accept food from a Shudra;

13. The Mahavira's embryo was transferred from one womb to another;
and Mahavira's mother had fourteen auspicious dreams before he was born. The Digambaras
believe that she had actually 16 such dreams;

14. Mahavira had a sickness due to the tejolesya
of Goshala.

15. Mahavira had married and had a daughter.

16. A cloth offered by the Gods (devadusya)
fell on the shoulders of a Tirthankara.

17. Marudevi went for her salvation riding an elephant;

18. A monk may accept alms from many houses.

REFERENCES

1. For a discussion on the dates of these Schisms, see at the end of
Chapter V.